2 Comments:

simpilmindz said...

Trust no one. Not even yourself. Least of all yourself, because we all want to believe in that which makes us feel most comfortable. So we believe what we believe. But once we believe something we should subject it to the most rigorous examination and ask ourselves the $64,000 question (or maybe it's $64 trillion now?): what if what I believe is completely wrong?When we examine a histrical event we need to jettison any religious and political beliefs we have and ask two simple questions: what happened and why did it happen? The media are of limited help in the first and of no help in the second.On a separate but related topic, I see that Rupert "the fox" Murdoch is seeking a new business model for his global communications empire and thinking of charging for internet content. He doesn't need a new business model, all he has to do is tell the truth. But would he recognise it if he saw it? Oh, by the way, it's going up - unemployment rate, I mean. And it's gonna get worse before it gets worse.Well, it's Saturday night here in dear old Scotland. I've just read that the new head of the British army General Sir David Richards, says that we will be in Afghanistan for another 40 years. Bloody hell! I'll be dead and he will be a doddering old fool (if he isn't already). Those who do not understand the past are condemned to repeat it. I forgive the Americans because they don't really understand the past anyway. But the Brits? History teaches us that the Brits were defeated THREE times in Afghanistan and on the last occasion we hightailed it out of there with our high tales beteen our legs, we lost 10,000 men just trying to leave the damn place. The tribes in that unforgiving land have been repelling invaders for several thousand years. When there are no invaders to fight they turn on each other. America and Britain can not win there because we are there for the wrong reasons. We are not trying to defeat al Qaeda (the BBC have finally admitted it is a fake organisation - watch out for retractions to follow); we are not trying to end terrorism; and we are certainly not trying to bring an end to opium production. So why are we there?Okay, I've wandered off-subject. As I said earlier, it's Saturday night and I just got paid. Fool about money don't try to save. So I'm going to pour myself a very large Glenlivet Single Highland Malt Whisky (25-year-old) and say, "To hell with it, there's always tomorrow." Or in the immortal words of Al Pacino, "Hooah!"Take care, y'all.

There have been "issues" with the federal government's methods of tracking unemployment for decades - particularly since Reagan was President.

So far as I can tell, there was a fundamental change in definition that deletes those who have given up on finding work even though they need a job. There could be several motivations for such a change, but the longer a job contraction persists, the less severe it is likely to look on paper.

I personally am very suspicious of reports indicating a dip in unemployment. Even if the dip is real, I suspect we are merely at a brief plateau on the way down (or up, if you are talking about unemployment rates.) I know anecdotal evidence is not really useful, but there are too many people who I see in my work who have layoffs pending in the next few weeks. If I am seeing so many, I suspect that there are a lot more out there.

Activist commercial media like Murdoch properties and what has become of the AP have severe primary spin problems. But the biggest problem with spin in the media is that they simply pass on whatever spin comes from official channels without challenge.